Metadata record for Impact Evaluation of the Felony Domestic Violence Court in Kings County [Brooklyn], New York, 1994-2000

Impact Evaluation of the Felony Domestic Violence Court in Kings County [Brooklyn], New York, 1994-2000 Newmark, Lisa Rempel, Mike Diffily, Kelly Kane, Kamala Mallik Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research ICPSR 2006-07-13 3382 doi://10.3886/ICPSR03382.v2

This study examined the ways in which the model of the Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court (FDVC) changed the way cases were processed and adjudicated, the impact of this approach on outcomes, and its effects on recidivism. In order to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the FDVC, the researchers selected three samples of cases for collection of detailed data and comparisons on case characteristics, processing, and outcomes. First, felony domestic violence cases indicted from 1995 to early 1996 before the FDVC was established, and adjudicated by various parts of the state Supreme Court were studied. These pre-FDVC cases provided a comparison group for assessing differences associated with the FDVC model. Very few of these cases had felony protection order violations as the sole or top indictment charge, since they predated the implementation of the expanded criminal contempt law that went into effect in September 1996. Second, a sample of cases adjudicated by FDVC in its early period (the first half of 1997, after the model was fully implemented) and similar in indictment charges to the pre-FDVC cases was selected. These were cases that had indictment charges other than, or in addition to, felony criminal contempt charges for protection order violations. In other words, these were cases that would have been indicted and adjudicated in the state Supreme Court even without application of the September 1996 law. Third, because the September 1996 law felonizing many protection order violations (under criminal contempt statutes) broadened the types of cases handled by the Supreme Court, compared with those handled in the Supreme Court prior to this law, an additional sample of cases adjudicated by the FDVC (beginning in the first half of 1997) was selected. This was a small sample in which felony protection order violations were the only indicted felony charges. These cases would not have been indicted on felonies during the pre-FDVC period, and so would have remained in the criminal courts as misdemeanors. The inclusion of this sample allowed the researchers to assess how the protection order violation cases were different from the general population of FDVC cases, and how they might be handled differently by the Court and partner agencies. These cases were designated "CC-only" because their only felony indictment was for criminal contempt, the law under which felony protection order violations were charged. Variables in Part 1, Recidivism Data, contain information on number of appearance warrants issued, days incarcerated for predisposition, number of appearances for predisposition and post-disposition, bail conditions (i.e., batterer treatment or drug treatment), top charge at arrest, indictment, and disposition, indications of defendant's substance abuse of alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs, and psychological problems, types of disposition and probation, months of incarceration, sentence conditions, history of abuse by defendant against the victim, length of abuse in months, history of physical assault and sexual abuse, past weapon use, and medical attention needed for past domestic violence. Additional variables focus on whether an order of protection was issued before the current incident, whether the defendant was arrested for past domestic violence with this victim, total number of known victims, weapon used during incident, injury during the incident, medical attention sought, number of final orders of protection, whether the defendant was jailed throughout the pending case, number of releases during the case, number of reincarcerations after release, whether the victim lived with the defendant, whether the victim lived with children in common with the defendant, relationship between the victim and the defendant, number of months the victim had known the defendant, number of children in common with the defendant, whether the victim attempted to drop charges, whether the victim testified at trial, whether a victim advocate was assigned, total violations during pending case, predisposition violations, and number of probation violations. Demographic variables in Part 1 include defendant and victims' gender, race, victim age at defendant's arrest, defendant's income, employment status, and education. Variables in Part 2, Top Charge Data, relating to the defendant include number and types of prior arrests and convictions, top charge at arrest, severity of top charge at arrest, top charge at grand jury indictment, severity of top charge indictment, disposition details, Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) arrest indicators, child victim conviction indicator, drug conviction indicator, weapon conviction indicator, types of probation, sentence, disposition, and offenses. Demographic variables in Part 2 include sex and race of the defendant.

UniverseScheme03382 Organization03382_1 97-WT-VX-0005

The Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court (FDVC) in the borough of Brooklyn, New York, has been operating since June 1996. Its goals were to create an effective and coordinated response to felony domestic violence crimes by bringing together criminal justice and social service agencies, and to serve as a model for other communities across the state and nation. One of the key features of this court model was its emphasis on building partnerships between public and private sector community agencies to coordinate their work and achieve a common set of goals. The key agencies consisted of the court, the Center for Court Innovation, the Kings County District Attorney's Office Domestic Violence Bureau and Counseling Services Unit, Safe Horizon's Brooklyn Felony Domestic Violence Unit, the New York City Department of Probation, New York Forensics, Safe Horizon's Alternatives to Violence, and Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime. This study evaluated the implementation and effectiveness of the Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court. The study examined questions about how the model of FDVC had changed the way cases were processed and adjudicated, the impact of this approach on outcomes, and its effects on recidivism.

ICPSR.XVII.E NACJD.XIII NACJD.V arrest records case processing court cases courts domestic violence family courts felony offenses program evaluation recidivism restraining orders sentencing Brooklyn, New York (state), United States 1994 2000 court cases administrative records data Domestic violence cases indicted on felony charges from 1995 to 1997 in Kings County, New York.

In order to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court, the researchers selected three samples of cases for collection of detailed data and comparisons on case characteristics, processing, and outcomes. First, felony domestic violence cases indicted from 1995 to early 1996, before the FDVC was established and adjudicated by various parts of the state Supreme Court, were studied. These pre-FDVC cases provided a comparison group for assessing differences associated with the FDVC model. Very few of these cases had felony protection order violations as the sole or top indictment charge, since they predated the implementation of the expanded criminal contempt law that went into effect in September 1996. Second, a sample of cases adjudicated by FDVC in its early period (the first half of 1997, after the model was fully implemented) and similar in indictment charges to the pre-FDVC cases was selected. These were cases that had indictment charges other than, or in addition to, felony criminal contempt charges for protection order violations. In other words, these were cases that would have been indicted and adjudicated in the Supreme Court even without application of the September 1996 law. Third, because the September 1996 law felonizing many protection order violations (under criminal contempt statutes) broadened the types of cases handled by the Supreme Court, compared with those handled in the Supreme Court prior to this law, an additional sample of cases adjudicated by the FDVC (beginning in the first half of 1997) was selected. This was a small sample in which felony protection order violations were the only indicted felony charges. These cases would not have been indicted on felonies during the pre-FDVC period, and so would have remained in the criminal courts as misdemeanors. The inclusion of this sample allowed the researchers to assess how the protection order violation cases were different from the general population of FDVC cases, and how they might be handled differently by the Court and partner agencies. These cases were designated "CC-only" because their only felony indictment was for criminal contempt, the law under which felony protection order violations were charged. The population of the sampled cases was identified by compiling four sources. First, cases were selected from the District Attorney's Office Management Information System, which catalogued cases identified as felony domestic violence in the Early Case Assessment Bureau from 1994 through 1997. Early explorations of this database showed that it included a number of cases that were not in fact domestic violence. This raised the troubling possibility that reliance on this as the sole source could exclude many domestic violence cases, if cases were also mistakenly excluded from the database. Reasons for possible exclusion were unknown, but the researchers feared that any systematic exclusion factors would lead to biased sampling. Second, cases were identified from the District Attorney's Office Domestic Violence Bureau log book of pending felonies, a chronological record of felony cases recorded as victims came in to speak with a Domestic Violence Bureau Felony assistant district attorney about testifying before a grand jury. This source had the drawback of excluding cases in which the victim did not come in to prepare for the grand jury. In addition, upkeep of the book ceased partway through 1995. Third, cases were found in the District Attorney's Domestic Violence Bureau trial list of open felony cases that was updated two to three times per week and ran from early 1995 through the end of 1996. Lastly, cases were selected from the Office of Court Administration records of cases that were flagged as domestic violence at arrest, from 1995 through 1997. However, identification of cases as domestic violence may have been incomplete in the early period.

none Convenience sampling. criminal court cases 1998 2000

ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.
Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Not applicable.

Variables in Part 1, Recidivism Data, contain information on number of appearance warrants issued, days incarcerated for predisposition, number of appearances for predisposition and post-disposition, bail conditions (i.e., batterer treatment or drug treatment), top charge at arrest, indictment, and disposition, indications of defendant's substance abuse of alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs, and psychological problems, types of disposition and probation, months of incarceration, sentence conditions, history of abuse by defendant against the victim, length of abuse in months, history of physical assault and sexual abuse, past weapon use, and medical attention needed for past domestic violence. Additional variables focus on whether an order of protection was issued before the current incident, whether the defendant was arrested for past domestic violence with this victim, total number of known victims, weapon used during incident, injury during the incident, medical attention sought, number of final orders of protection, whether the defendant was jailed throughout the pending case, number of releases during the case, number of reincarcerations after release, whether the victim lived with the defendant, whether the victim lived with children in common with the defendant, relationship between the victim and the defendant, number of months the victim had known the defendant, number of children in common with the defendant, whether the victim attempted to drop charges, whether the victim testified at trial, whether a victim advocate was assigned, total violations during pending case, predisposition violations, and number of probation violations. Demographic variables in Part 1 include defendant and victims' gender, race, victim age at defendant's arrest, defendant's income, employment status, and education. Variables in Part 2, Top Charge Data, relating to the defendant include number and types of prior arrests and convictions, top charge at arrest, severity of top charge at arrest, top charge at grand jury indictment, severity of top charge indictment, disposition details, Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) arrest indicators, child victim conviction indicator, drug conviction indicator, weapon conviction indicator, types of probation, sentence, disposition, and offenses. Demographic variables in Part 2 include sex and race of the defendant.

ICPSR

To protect respondent privacy, certain identifying information is restricted from general dissemination. Specifically, date variables are restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Data Transfer Agreement Form and specify the reasons for the request. A copy of the Data Transfer Agreement Form can be requested by calling 800-999-0960. The Data Transfer Agreement Form is also available as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file from the NACJD Web site. Completed forms should be returned to: Director, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, Institute of Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248, or by fax: 734-647-8200.

AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.

The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Rearch ICPSR

Ann Arbor MI

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/ netmail@icpsr.umich.edu United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice 2006-07-13 ICPSR 2006-07-13 Restricted versions of both Part 1 and Part 2 were added. Downloadable versions of both parts were updated by adding SAS transport (XPORT) files, SPSS portable files, and Stata setup and system files. 2006-01-18 ICPSR 2006-01-18 File CB3382.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.